G.R. No. L-29972 – ROSARIO CARBONELL, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, JOSE PONCIO, EMMA INFANTE and RAMON INFANTE, respondents.
MAKASIAR, J.
Rule Synopsis
In case of double sales of immovable property, the first to register in good faith is preferred.
Facts
Jose Poncio owns a parcel of land which he sold to two different buyers (both adjacent landowners) in separate instances, as he was unable to pay the mortgage constituted thereon in favor of Republic Savings Bank. The first sale was in favor of Rosario Carbonell; as terms of payment, Carbonell will assume the mortgage balance and pay P400. The second sale was in favor of Emma Infante for a higher price. Poncio withdrew from his agreement with Carbonell. Thereafter, Infante also erected a wall around the subject lot with a gate; she also took possession of the lot introduced improvements. Carbonell registered the sale is his favor on Feb. 8, 1995; Infante also registered on Feb. 12, 1995
Thus, Carbonell filed a complaint praying to be declared lawful owner of the subject property.
As defense, Infante said that the first sale was unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds, the alleged sale in her favor not being evidenced by a written document.
The RTC dismissed the complaint, finding that Infante had better right. The CA affirmed on reconsideration. The SC reversed.
Issue
Who between Carbonell and Infante had better right over the subject property?
Ruling and Discussion
Carbonell had better right over the subject property being the first to register in good faith.
Applying Art. 1544, it is the first to register an immovable in his name in good faith who had better right over a property in case of a double sale. In this case, the sale with Carbonell was first in time, thus, she couldn’t have known of the second sale since it was not yet in existence at the time of the execution of the contract in her favor. In contrast, that cannot be said with Infante’s registration, which the Court held to have been made in bad faith.
Furthermore, the SC found that the prior sale to Carbonell had been duly established, that there is adequate consideration for the sale in her favor (assumption of mortgage and additional payment), and that the identification and description of the disputed lot in the memorandum presented before the Court was sufficient since Poncio has no other property that would fall under the said description.
Dispositive
Decision reversed.